CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

in the Interest of V.A., V.A., and V.A., Minor Children

The Thirteenth District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, affirmed the termination of a biological mother's parental rights to her three minor daughters, V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.A.3. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) initially sued the mother, alleging conditions endangering the children and the mother's failure to comply with court-ordered actions for family reunification under sections of the Texas Family Code. A jury found statutory grounds for termination and that it was in the children's best interest. The mother appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the trial court's admission of alleged 'backdoor hearsay' testimony regarding drug use. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the mother failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan and that termination was in the children's best interest. The court also concluded there was no reversible error in the admission of the challenged testimony, as it was consistent with other admitted evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareTexas Family CodeFactual SufficiencyHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsUnstable Home EnvironmentSubstance Abuse
References
18
Case No. 2-03-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

in the Interest of T.N. and M.N., Children

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of J.N. (Mother) and S.N. (Father) to their children, T.N. and M.N. The parents appealed the termination, challenging the children's attorney's performance, trial court's rulings on challenges for cause, and the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment and the children's best interest. The court found Mother lacked standing for her complaints and failed to preserve other issues. For Father, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony and found sufficient evidence of endangerment due to his conduct, including leaving children with a substance-abusing grandmother and Mother, and their own domestic violence. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in the children's best interest, citing Father's instability and limited participation in recommended programs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyAttorney Ad LitemDue ProcessChallenges for CauseExpert TestimonyLay Testimony
References
21
Case No. 07-09-0101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2009

in the Interest of D.D.D.K., C.E.K., Jr. and C.E.K., Children

This case involves an appeal by Charles and Nancy from a final order terminating their parental rights to their three minor children. The appellants challenged the admission of hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse and the sufficiency of evidence supporting findings of endangerment and the children's best interest. The court heard extensive testimony about the children suffering multiple instances of sexual abuse, including by a relative and later by strangers in a motel, often while the parents were present and using drugs. All children tested positive for illicit substances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the parents' conduct and the conditions they allowed endangered the children, and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual AbuseDrug AbuseChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildTexas Family LawAppellate ReviewFoster Care
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K Mart Corp. v. Rhyne

This is a premises liability case where Allie Louise Rhyne slipped and fell at a K Mart store, sustaining injuries. Allie and Curtis Rhyne sued K Mart for negligence, and a jury awarded damages. K Mart appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for negligence and damages, and disputing the calculation of prejudgment interest and the admissibility of expert witness testimony from a chiropractor. The appellate court affirmed the findings of negligence and damages but reformed the prejudgment interest calculation from compounded to simple interest, as required by statute. The court also found error in admitting the chiropractor's testimony regarding surgical costs but deemed it harmless due to broad-form damage submission.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallPersonal InjuryDamagesPrejudgment InterestExpert Witness TestimonyChiropractor TestimonyFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
34
Case No. 06-14-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

in the Interest of R.T.M. and I.M., Children

Raechel and Raymond appealed the termination of their parental rights to their children, R.T.M. and I.M., challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the appointment of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as conservator. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination, citing the parents' history of drug abuse, domestic violence, failure to comply with court orders, and creation of an unstable and dangerous home environment. Testimony indicated the children feared their parents and desired to remain with their foster family. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that termination was in the children's best interest. Furthermore, the court upheld the Department's conservatorship, ruling that the parents lacked standing to challenge the non-appointment of a relative intervenor, A.H.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily LawChild EndangermentDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceBest Interest of ChildClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate ReviewConservatorship
References
16
Case No. 91-1324
Regular Panel Decision

Dawes v. Leonardo

Ian Dawes, a New York State prison inmate, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Superintendent Arthur Leonardo and Hearing Officer John Patterson. Dawes alleged that a policy prohibited inmates in the Special Housing Unit from being present during the testimony of favorable witnesses at disciplinary hearings and that Patterson failed to provide written explanations for this. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing inmates have no constitutional right to be present during witness testimony. The court, citing Second Circuit precedent in Francis v. Coughlin, held that prison inmates do not possess a constitutional right to be present during such testimony. While New York State regulations might provide such a right, the court concluded that a procedural safeguard not required by the U.S. Constitution does not create a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Civil RightsInmate RightsDue ProcessDisciplinary HearingsSummary JudgmentLaw of the CasePrisoner LitigationLiberty InterestConstitutional LawNew York Regulations
References
16
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Gonzalez v. United Parcel Service

A jury verdict in defendant's favor led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. The judgment, entered on June 9, 1999, was unanimously affirmed. The court found that a third-party action initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff's employer was properly discontinued via a stipulation, and the plaintiff's consent was not required as they were not a party to, nor interested in, the action. Furthermore, the discontinuance and prior court rulings did not prevent the plaintiff from subpoenaing and examining the employer's president. The plaintiff's claim regarding the lack of an interested witness charge for a co-worker's deposition testimony was deemed unpreserved for appellate review; even if considered, any prejudice was minimal since the testimony was used to establish expert reliance rather than for its truth.

Jury verdictComplaint dismissalThird-party actionStipulation of partiesWitness examinationDeposition testimonyAppellate reviewInterested witness chargeTrial court errorCase affirmation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,828 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational